eweek is linking to a report (PDF format) from a student at MIT detailing how Microsoft is using a hardware-based encryption key in the Xbox. The bad news? The key is identical in every unit.
No, this is not a war, but it is one of those rare moments when people (goverments, businesses, etc.) seem to be shaking off a little bit of the daily momentum and inertia, and realizing that they do have a choice!
We're all creatures of habit: it's comfortable, it's easy, it's the path of least resistance. It can take a lot of time and effort to change even one individual's behavior, to say nothing of a collective group.
Businesses, especially large ones, are usually slow-moving creatures, especially when it comes to deploying IT. From their perspective, they've seen a company (Microsoft) that's been basically responsive to their needs, and making the right noises when it comes to improving their products (re: Microsoft's Trustworthy Computing)
Change, when and if it happens, usually starts slowly, and gathers momentum as it goes. Right now, there are two good reasons for looking for alternatives to Microsoft's hegemony:
1. Economy: if I can save a buck (or two, or several thousand) by choosing your product instead of someone else's, you're going to get my attention. Of course, you'll have to demonstrate that your product works as well, if not better, than your competitor's.
2. Security: the less I have to worry about hackers, viruses and all the 10,000 innocent mistakes regular people make when they use computers, the happier I'll be. Do I expect 100% perfect security? Of course not... but I'll sleep a lot easier knowing that I have less to worry about.
One thing to keep in mind, though (and this is where it might look like people 'worship at the altar of Microsoft') and that is the simple fact that people don't like change! How many of us can recount stories of users with that 'deer-in-the-headlights' look when faced with new features (a change of icons, even a different color scheme on a Windows desktop)?
From this not-so-newbie's perspective, it looks like we're in for some interesting times...
I'm not sure that I totally agree... how would (or could) you factor in for people who buy multiple tickets (repeat viewers)? Is a 'population factor' valid in a case like this?
The same might be said for VCRs and DVDs... yes, I do agree there, but that's also a difficult line to draw, and again, may not be as statistically significant.
Are there any statistics published on the number of collective movie tickets sold in any given year? Comparing population and # of tickets sold might make a good comparative index when looking at overall movie popularity...
I agree with other Slashdotters (and movie fans) who say that comparing movie grosses is an 'apples-to-oranges' comparison: inflation, competition, number of screens, and perhaps other factors, make 'first-weekend grosses' pretty much headline fodder only, not a good number comparisons can be based on.
Here's a modest proposal to accurately compare movie 'x' and movie 'y':
How many tickets were sold for the entire first-run screening of the movie?
If one million people saw "Star Wars" in 1977 (a made-up number, I know...) and one million people saw "Attack of the Clones" in 2002, I'd suggest that both moves were equally popular.
Does anyone have any idea if such a statistic is published anywhere?
I'm looking at two stories, one on CNN's website, and one on the NY Times site.
In each case, there is a headline, and some additional information on the next line (reporter's name for the Times, a timestamp for CNN)
Would it be difficult, from a programming point of view, to adopt a structure like this:
HEADLINE
(reported by)
(latest posting timestamp) (nnn updates since original publication) (original posting timestamp)
where clicking the (nnn updates) generates a list of previous versions of the story (.001,.002....nnn)
STORY GOES HERE...
Yes, information does change over time, especially as news is gathered and developed. News junkies like myself, and other interested parties, could use the (nnn updates) link to see how a story develops over time.
In an intriguing plot twist, Neo, realizing that the Smiths are the ultimate in recursive spy-ware, designs and releases WebWasher [M] (tm) to prevent them from popping up (and under) all over the place.
Slashdot Mirror
The wee beasties love it, especially with a nice single malt
When interrogated in a follow-up interview, Gaak confessed to looking for Gregory.
eweek is linking to a report (PDF format) from a student at MIT detailing how Microsoft is using a hardware-based encryption key in the Xbox. The bad news? The key is identical in every unit.
Actually, the last place I want microwaves is a little further south...
Hey, wow! Bananas! How much?
No, this is not a war, but it is one of those rare moments when people (goverments, businesses, etc.) seem to be shaking off a little bit of the daily momentum and inertia, and realizing that they do have a choice!
We're all creatures of habit: it's comfortable, it's easy, it's the path of least resistance. It can take a lot of time and effort to change even one individual's behavior, to say nothing of a collective group.
Businesses, especially large ones, are usually slow-moving creatures, especially when it comes to deploying IT. From their perspective, they've seen a company (Microsoft) that's been basically responsive to their needs, and making the right noises when it comes to improving their products (re: Microsoft's Trustworthy Computing)
Change, when and if it happens, usually starts slowly, and gathers momentum as it goes. Right now, there are two good reasons for looking for alternatives to Microsoft's hegemony:
1. Economy: if I can save a buck (or two, or several thousand) by choosing your product instead of someone else's, you're going to get my attention. Of course, you'll have to demonstrate that your product works as well, if not better, than your competitor's.
2. Security: the less I have to worry about hackers, viruses and all the 10,000 innocent mistakes regular people make when they use computers, the happier I'll be. Do I expect 100% perfect security? Of course not... but I'll sleep a lot easier knowing that I have less to worry about.
One thing to keep in mind, though (and this is where it might look like people 'worship at the altar of Microsoft') and that is the simple fact that people don't like change! How many of us can recount stories of users with that 'deer-in-the-headlights' look when faced with new features (a change of icons, even a different color scheme on a Windows desktop)?
From this not-so-newbie's perspective, it looks like we're in for some interesting times...
Here's a good discussion of how it's done... from the Invention Factory
I'm not sure that I totally agree... how would (or could) you factor in for people who buy multiple tickets (repeat viewers)? Is a 'population factor' valid in a case like this?
The same might be said for VCRs and DVDs... yes, I do agree there, but that's also a difficult line to draw, and again, may not be as statistically significant.
Can any statisticians lend their opinion?
Are there any statistics published on the number of collective movie tickets sold in any given year? Comparing population and # of tickets sold might make a good comparative index when looking at overall movie popularity...
I agree with other Slashdotters (and movie fans) who say that comparing movie grosses is an 'apples-to-oranges' comparison: inflation, competition, number of screens, and perhaps other factors, make 'first-weekend grosses' pretty much headline fodder only, not a good number comparisons can be based on.
Here's a modest proposal to accurately compare movie 'x' and movie 'y':
How many tickets were sold for the entire first-run screening of the movie?
If one million people saw "Star Wars" in 1977 (a made-up number, I know...) and one million people saw "Attack of the Clones" in 2002, I'd suggest that both moves were equally popular.
Does anyone have any idea if such a statistic is published anywhere?
Paging Mr. Hilter... Mr Bimmler... the Monty Python routine
Yes, offtopic... but irresistible!
I'm looking at two stories, one on CNN's website, and one on the NY Times site. In each case, there is a headline, and some additional information on the next line (reporter's name for the Times, a timestamp for CNN) Would it be difficult, from a programming point of view, to adopt a structure like this: HEADLINE (reported by) (latest posting timestamp) (nnn updates since original publication) (original posting timestamp) where clicking the (nnn updates) generates a list of previous versions of the story (.001, .002 ... .nnn)
STORY GOES HERE...
Yes, information does change over time, especially as news is gathered and developed. News junkies like myself, and other interested parties, could use the (nnn updates) link to see how a story develops over time.
In an intriguing plot twist, Neo, realizing that the Smiths are the ultimate in recursive spy-ware, designs and releases WebWasher [M] (tm) to prevent them from popping up (and under) all over the place.
If Compaq purchased Digital, and HP is merging with Compaq, is HP-Compaq-Digital a Beowulf cluster of corporations?